The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-11-27
A BIG MONOPOLY In OIL.
THE CERTIFICATES OF THE TRUST
OVER $eo,ooo,ooo.

Chairman Rockefeller Admits That
They Represent Tcis Amount-Sixty-
Five Per Cent. of the Oil Refining
Business of the Country Done by
This Company.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26.--J. ~ Rockefel
Ter, chairman of the Standard Oil Trust,
was sworn and examined before the Inter
state Commerce Commission this morning,
in connection with the STANDARD Oil cases.
The counsel for the complainants asked the
witness to produce paper which he had in
hand, giving list of the various compa-
MES held in the trust. Immediately the
counsel for the Standard Oil Trust and
for several of the defendant railroads, in
posed objections, the former on the ground
that the Standard Oh Trust was not party
to this case, and that the production of the
paper would be an unnecessary and irrele-
want disclosure of the witness private
affairs The railroad attorneys argued
against encumbering the record with mat
ters not already brought into this case, in
sisting that nothing in the list in question
except the Standard Oil Company of Ken
lucky, the Standard Oil Company of Ohio
and the Waters Pierce Company of st.
Louis was relevant to this case. There
were various other minor points of obJec-
tion by the railroads which were urged
vigorously, though briefly.
ONE DIDN'T OBJECT.
The counsel for the Newport News and
Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, how
ever, stated that his company interpoSed no
objection whatever.
a1,s, eaiI hot
the railroad witnesses had disclosed the
names Of a number of consignors and con-
signees who had received rates and enjoyed
privileges like those alleged to have been ac
corded to the Standard Company alone, and
it was desirable to disclose by the testimony
of the witness whether or not these indie
pendent consignees and consignors were not
in fact part of the Standard Oil Trust.
The commission retired to take the sub
ject into consideration, and upon its return,
fifteen minutes later, the chairman
that it is competent to show
by this witness or any other, whether the
stocks of the Standard Oil Company of
kentucky, or the Standard Oil Company of
Ohio, or the Waters-Pierce Company Of st.
Louis, or of any other company, or of any
person that has been connected by evidence
with shipments over these roads during the
period of the controversy, are held by this
oil trust that has been spoken of, and also
to show whether any of the
persons who appear in this case,
either as shippers or as con-
signeeS are in any way connected with
this oil trust, or under its control. 1t is
also our opinion that if it should appear
from the evidence that either of these COM
panies, the stock of either of these com
panies, or any one of them, is held by this
oil trust, it will then be competent to go
further and to know in general terms what
the extent of the capital is that is controlled
by this oil trust, and what is the extent of
the business that is controlled by it, for the
purpose of putting before the commission
the extent of the operations of this trust.
That is as far as we, as at present advised,
think the commission can go in its ruling"
THOSE IN THE TRUST.
Objection to the admission of the list it
self having thus been sustained, the counsel
fer the complainant proceeded to question
the witness within the rulings of the COM
mission. The witness stated in reply to a
series of inquiries that the stock of the
Standard Oil Company of Ohio, the Stand
ard Oil Company of Kentucky, the
Camden Consolidated Oil Company of
Company of St, Louis, and the Consolidated
Tank Line Company of Cincinnati was
held by the Standard Oil Trust Several
other companies were mentioned by the
counsel for the complainants, but were OBJ
iected to and excluded on the ground that
these companies had not been brought into
the case in previously given evidence. The
witness said in substance that the stock of
these companies was received from
trust issued in exchange; that
the profits of the several companies
were not divided among the stockholders,
but was paid into the trust, and then di
vided among the holders of the trust certii-
Gates; also that the aggregate of the out
standing certificates was about 10000, 900.
The complainant's counsel proposed to show
that the actual value of the trust certificates
was much greater, but this was excluded.
The witness stated that % per cent. OF the
oil refining business of the country was
done by his company. The trust certificates
were held in all parts of the country.
RICE ON THE STAND.
George Rice, the complainant, was sworn
and examined He submitted number of
papers bearing upon all the economic
features of the oil business and produced a
mass of correspondence which was sub
mitted in evidence so far as it might prove
competent. He was examined and cross
examined at considerable length, but beyond
statement that his profits We're
about 14c. a barrel on oil
delivered at his works in Ohio, and further
statement in contradiction to that of most
of the railroad men that the consignor, and
consgnee usually load and unload barreled
oil at their own expense, his testimony
covered familiar ground. The counsel for
both sides stated probability that the
evidence would be closed on Monday. The
counsel for the complainant wished to have
the oral argument begun at once.
The counsel for the defendants moved for
delay to give an opportunity to print and
examine the record.
The chairman announced the decision Of
the commission to grant the delay, and said
he would announce its length on Monday.
Among the reasons which he gave was that
if any of the defendant companies had be-
come convinced during the hearing that
their rates needed any revision, opportunity
would thus be afforded Without, of course,
expressing any opinion upon the merits of
the case, he would submit this suggestion.